[PATCH v6 0/5] Basic ARM devicetree support

[grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely)]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:44:49PM +0200, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > Right now it merges cleanly with linux-next and the resulting tree
>> > builds and boots at least on qemu. ?Unless you really object, I'm
>> > going to ask Stephen to add the following branch to the /end/ of the
>> > list of trees for linux-next so it can easily be dropped it if it
>> > causes any problems.
>>
>> As far as the set of five patches looks fine to me, I don't have any
>> objections against them. ?So I think we can merge them for .40.

Yay!  Thanks Russell!

>> What I've always worried about is the platform stuff, and that's
>> something I'm going to continue worrying about because I don't think
>> we have sufficient review capacity to ensure that we don't end up
>> with lots of stupidities.

Understood, and I agree to a point, but I'm cautiously optimistic that
the review process we talked about heavily this week will be able to
push back on bad bindings to prevent a lot of these problems.  It also
helps that we we can cut over to device tree in board ports in stages
without needing a change-everything-flag-day.  Devices can be
converted one by one, which will limit the volume of stuff that needs
to be reviewed at one time.

> DT is certainly not a silver bullet. ?Good judgement will be needed as
> to what is put in DT and how it is represented. ?I don't think that it
> would make things worse than they are now though.

+1

> I also do have some concerns about some aspects of DT which I've
> expressed several times in the past. ?However I don't think holding back
> those patches any longer is a solution though.
>
> So consider this as a ACK from my part to merge those patches now. ?This
> will get the ball rolling.

Thanks Nicolas.

g.